User talk:Tasc/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1, 2

[edit] Israel Lexicon Link

Hi, I would like to understand why you decided to erase the very usefull link to the Israel News Lexicon from the value Israel. This Lexicon includes definitions to most of the importent people, events and terms that have to do with Israel. It is not commercial and does not include ads and banners. I have used it many times before and i think that it is more then fit to apear as an external link under 'Israel'.

thanks, gpridor

yeah, i guess you're right. I've reverted myself. thanks. Please sign your comments with 4 tildas and place your comments at the end of a page. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bedouins in the IDF

Tasc, I have repeatedly placed a Citation Needed for the claim concerning the number of Bedouin Arabs serving in the IDF. You removed it, and I really would like to know why. It is not unfair or unbalanced to simply request citation for a statistic especially one presented like this. Worst of all was that you did not place citation in its place, which is the only reason you should have removed that link.Olockers

because who should and not should in idf is a topic in IDF article. and your citation needed is completely irrelevant 'cause link to idf article is just few lines above. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 06:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not why I am objecting. I know that Bedouins and in fact all non-Jews, except Druze in Israel are excempt. But the statistic for the number of Bedouin is still not verified. Clearly citation is needed for this claim, which at present does not give citation. Therefore I would ask that you did not remove my call for Citation.Olockers

[edit] Common Hebrew Phrases

I don't know why you have insisted on deleting the section on Common Hebrew Phrases? I am only trying to help. - Olockers

it's not needed. there is wiktionary project out there. may be it would fit there, but not here. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Good work on Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, keep it up! --Cyde Weys 21:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kefir

Please note the new Talk topic related to your last edit on the Kefir article. Webaware 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You're pretty quick on the delete key there, tasc. Are Talk pages beneath you, or do you just know better than everyone else? As for kefiring coconut water not being notable, I guess that depends on whether or not you can tolerate dairy products. (I can, but many who seek information on kefir seem to have problems with either lactose or casein). Webaware 09:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

really, how do you know this information? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because many of the people who as me for (free) kefir grains want to know how they can make kefir without using cow's or goat's milk, due to problems mostly with casein, but occasionally lactose. Coconut water is one popular way, especially for those also with gluten and soy intolerances. Webaware 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. - Politepunk 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, for intervention link. did i miss substitution somewhere? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I just noticed that you'd reverted some vandalism without following up with warnings on their talk pages. A while ago, I thought that it wasa waste of time doing this (and had the same template posted on my talk page ;-) ), but I now appreciate that it's all a part of the process that will persuade them to stop vandalising.

Keep up the good work. - Politepunk 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding GA Failure

Do you care to explain your action regarding timeline ga failure? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did explain the rationale on the talk page. I never said anything was unreadable in the article. joturner 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note

Dear tasc, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Wikipedia

task, why have you left the Russian W.? We miss you. Barnaul 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

i thought that explanations are fairly clear, aren't they? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate editing behaviour

If you continue to engage in inappropriate editing behaviour by adding poorly-written nonsensical content to Wikipedia I will take formal steps to remedy the situation. --Gene_poole 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

would you please g f y? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. RexNL 14:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, i know now how to play your bureaucratic games. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 14:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert-rule is not a bureaucratic game, it's just a measure to prevent pointless edit wars. Instead of reverting each other's changes the whole time, you could respond to the objections on the talk page. RexNL 14:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigotry and Religiocentrism disagreement

Hi, I've raised concerns on both of these articles in the talk pages, and the latest concerns in Talk:Bigotry have been overlooked, despite my request in the edit summaries that you address them if you want to revert it, and my comments in Talk:Religiocentrism have been totally ignored, despite again my request that you see the talk page. Please see the corresponding talk page before or after reverting my changes in order to avoid bad-faith editing on your part. Revert wars won't do us any good; these changes may seem small, but they are important to me, and the appropriate thing to do would be to continue discussion and see if we and others who read these articles could come to a consensus. Thanks - Talk:religiocentrism Talk:bigotry Karwynn 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Hi, don't revert the anon until he's been blocked for violating the 3RR. Telex 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent - Russia

Hi Tasc, you moved Russia from the Asian page to the European page. It's fine that way. People can't agree on which it belongs. That's why I put the "See Asian page" on the European page. We're using the 7 continent model simply as a means of spreading roughly the same number of jurisdictions across the 6 sub pages. The problem with that model is Russia straddles one line of demarcation. Since its land mass was greater on the Asian side it was put on that page. It's purely arbitary and has nothing to do with social concerns. But as I said, it doesn't really matter. Cheers! --Monotonehell 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

despite greater asian land mass, majority of the population is in european part ;) -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrmz we could also go with where the Capital lies. It's all arbitary. ^_^ --Monotonehell 13:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of consent in North America

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. Ardenn 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

you've proved yourself being random vandal. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to get this resolved as much as you do. Perhaps we can both keep a cool head and work this out? I won't be around this afternoon, but I do want to work with you so that we can resolve this amicably. Ardenn 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

do we have anything to resolve? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding this edit: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 16:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm so impressed when you talk in template language. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

and btw, what exactly was personal attack? shame on you words? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia policy requires that you be respectful towords other users. Further comments along those lines will result in a temporary block of editing privilages. --InShaneee 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[no npa] i know how to play this bureaucratic games. thanks. [/no npa] -- tasc ^talk_deeds 16:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a game. One more incivil comment and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

just curious, how many hours will you add if i call someone (e.g. you) an idiot? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 17:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for 48 hours for incivility and repeatedly removing tags from pages. --InShaneee 16:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm gonna die now. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 17:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, as an uninvolved party, I posted a note on WP:AN/I that I thought the block was rather harsh under the circumstances. You're probably feeling quite annoyed about someone coming in from nowhere and planting tags on an article you've been working on and not engaging in constructive discussion. But stuff happens, and please don't let yourself be provoked. No-one wins. All the best, Martinp 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

as i noted already, it wasn't someone. that user moved pages w/o discussion or even summary. put them for speedy deletion as an original research. and when i'm saying shame on you i get blocked. annoying is not exactly my feeling. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

my feeling is rather down with wikipedia. i don't care anymore. people don't see difference between spirit of the law and letter of the law. place is full of overgrown video gamers stubborn and narrow-minded. i'm glad i was here and know how it works. will divide per 16 all what i read here. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay

Someone posted a phone # to it, so I'm trying to delete those revisions from history. I'm working with people on IRC to clear it up as soon as possible. Sorry for the inconvenience FreplySpang (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All done now. FreplySpang (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Greetings Tasc, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on this article? Thanks. Netscott 14:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

Why have you been reverting all links linking royal articles to Haplogroup T (mtDNA) and Haplogroup H (mtDNA)? The Romanovs and their relatives are the key figures which allowed research to progress and the Haplophroup articles directly reference them. Several articles on their ancestors also contain the references for quite some time now. User:Dimadick

because it's poorly written, of questinable importance information? because it's copypasted to each of those article? because at most this information might be included in see also section (as a link)? choose what you like better. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 19:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How poorly written can a stub section be? It contains all the necessary information for it. Not less important on the title and sainthood sections. At least this allows further research instead of reproducing royalist and religious glorification. The copypaste is reasonable for similar articles in a series. "See also" sections are only used when you can not incorporate a regular reference in the article. User:Dimadick

further research is possible in dna articles. there is zero helpfull or usefull info for readers of royality articles. and I'm telling you that you cannot incorporate this section in an article, therefore see also should be used. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The useful info is their genetics and lineage. Not to mention what diseases they inherited from natrilineal ancestors like Victoria and her haemophilia. Again "see also" should be avoided. User:Dimadick

As far as a can see, haplogroup T is not a disease, and must be common to millions of people without making any impact on their lives. The only unusual thing is that these people happen to have been tested for identification purposes? Should every biography article contain a genetic map of the person concerned? This stub section really does not explain what implication it has for anything, possibly because there are none? Sandpiper 09:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

most probably there are none. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes for Nuclear program of Iran

You've contributed several times to Nuclear program of Iran. Now much of that has been moved over to Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Some questions before us are (1) are the Brzezinski and Vanunu quotes unbalanced by, say, a Kissinger quote, and (2) do they belong in the latter article? I'd appreciate your input. Simesa 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

if we're talking about Opinions in the Arab and Islamic world section, I don't thinks that any quotes are needed in that section. Yes, this is an opinion section, but quotes provided do not contribute to the article, not to mention that they just copied from sources. Way to detailed section is already, I fail to understand how tracing every interview might help to understand general Muslim world stance. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--Tyutmf 17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. You're not even an administrator and if you report me, you'll be blocked for the same reason.

[edit] Current events

We did it last hurricane season for the end (Zeta, and the official end of the seasons), and for the big storms (Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma; as well as record-breaking Alpha). It's a current event, I don't see why 1E doesn't go there. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:28 UTC (2006-05-27)

so you were wrong. I don't see why it goes there. Noone died, no security measures were enacted, it just rained for a while! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked You have been temporarily blocked from editing for waging multiple edit wars across multiple articles with another user running for days. You are welcome to return and contribute to Wikipedia after the block expires. However if you again vandalise us you may be subject to a longer block. To contest this block please place {{unblock}} below and explain why you feel you should be unblocked.

Test5 (after-block warning) - did i miss smth. Oh, it's probably normal wp policy. block all, noone will check. user can't do anything. well, good luck. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

Please explain why you are removing the Barry Bonds item from the Current events page. This is of importance to people throughout the Western Hemisphere, as well as Japan, Korea and Taiwan. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

because, wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a localnews station. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Zoe, except regarding the removal of an event that noted the beginning of the 2006 Pacific hurricane / typhoon season. That is most certainly of inter-continental importance. joturner 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

because, wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a localnews station. Not to mention, that NOTHING happened! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated vandalism of Current Events will not be tolerated. Discuss this before deleting again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

your ... will not be tolerated either. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the Current events Talk page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia category?

Tasc, as a long time editor on the islamophobia article you should be particularly qualified to express your view over on this "islamophobia" CfD. Netscott 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics in Nicholas II and elsewhere

Hello Tasc. I see that you've been removing genetics information from articles on various European nobles. I can appreciate that the inclusion of genetic information is contentious for some of the more obscure nobles; we can leave that debate aside for now, though I must disagree with your characterization of it as "nonsense" -- whether it should be included or not, it is not that.

For the moment, I feel very strongly that genetic information must be included in Nicholas II of Russia. The genetic testing which established that he was of haplogroup T and his wife haplogroup H was the same which conclusively showed the remains ascribed to them were truly theirs, and which finally and conclusively settled the Anastasia / Anna Anderson question.

This result has been mentioned in academic papers, popular books (e.g. The Seven Daughters of Eve), and the international media. In my opinion it far exceeds the notability requirements for inclusion in the Nicholas II of Russia article. --Saforrest 17:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have explained reasons for removal numerous amount of times. But i can repeat some of them. The paragraph is written in a language highly dissimilar to the rest of the article. It's a template-like language. There is no connection to the rest of the article. For some stub, genetics section comprised up to the half of the article lenght, which is ridiculous - looks like the whole point of lifes and importance of these people was in some haplogroup membership. That important information belongs to halogrop article, not articles about individuals. I don't object inserion of this information in form of relevant (!!!) sentence - not a section, or see also entry, or category inclusion. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just entering this discussion, so I haven't seen your previous discussions on the matter, and there weren't any at the article in question, Nicholas II of Russia, which is all I'm talking about currently.

For Nicholas II, the way in which this information is presented is a stylistic choice. I don't currently have a strong opinion on what form that should be, but I do disagree with the notion that information should be removed because in its current form it doesn't agree with a specific idea of the style of the article. Reformatted, perhaps, but not removed.

Anyway, for now my only goal was to establish that we both agree that the mitochondrial DNA information should be present, in some form, in the Nicholas II of Russia article. Since you seem to agree, we can flesh out what form that takes and discuss this on that article's talk page. Regards, --Saforrest 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Здравствуйте Tasc!

Здравствуйте, Таsc! Вас, на наш взгляд, очень не хватает в русской Вики. Мы высоко оцениваем Ваш вклад в русскую Википедию и считаем, что Вы могли бы принести ему много пользы. От лица сообщества мы приносим Вам свои извинения за оскорбления и несправедливо наложенные блокировки и просим Вас вернуться. Также хотим заметить, что Ваши давние враги Dart evader и The Wrong Man либо ушли в глубокое подполье, либо стали менее активными, так что возвращайтесь! Barnaul 09:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ID burn 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

большое спасибо за приглашение, но в данный момент у меня нет времени даже на английскую википедию, так что пожалуй в ближайшем будущем я не смогу присоединится к вам. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 12:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Очень жаль. Это было бы хорошим знаком для всех противников гомофобов. Они Вас до сих пор не забыли и постоянно вспоминают, да и мы на Ваше мнение ссылаемся ;-). Может быть Вы хотя бы в качестве наблюдателя или советчика к нам? Мы Вас всегда ждем. Barnaul

[edit] AoC link

lol did you read that "fairy tale" that you RVd on Age of consent? It was some story. Completely pointless other than to "illustrate" the legal fiction of AoC. At first I thought it was completely unrelated. How obtuse and bizzare. --Monotonehell 21:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it's a good one. I should it read first. I've reverted myself back. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops I didn't actually mean it was a good one lol. I was just pointing out what it was and how bizare and pointless it was. I spose it can stay if we tell people what it is? I dunno my first reaction would be to kill it. Maybe let's see what others think. --Monotonehell 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page, as it can be seen as vandalism. Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 08:52 UTC (2006-06-11)

it wasn't legitimate warning. neither is yours. please, don't troll on my talk page. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing others of trolling violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF, please avoid doing so. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:55 UTC (2006-06-11)

and accusing others of vandalism does not? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never accused you of vandalism. I'm saying it could be seens as vandalism. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:57 UTC (2006-06-11)

why don't you put in on your talk page. just now you did exactly the same! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah, but I've not removed legitimate warnings. Your warning was clearly baseless. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:02 UTC (2006-06-11)

and who decided so? you? warnings on my talk page were even more baseless. like you didn't care to check. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<--- unindented
I did. I even linked you to an edit summary where you committed a personal attack. Please cease this at once. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:08 UTC (2006-06-11)

you did. so why didn't check further and left warning on a crow's talk page? User Tasc has not moved to talk page as stated, is a disruptive vandal of course it's not a personal attack and just friendliest summary ever. and please DON'T ORDER ME ON MY TALK PAGE. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO DO SO. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 09:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel article

Please, discuss all major changes you want to do to the Israel article. Blindly removing information does not lead to anything. Also, more than three reverts is not approved. If you have something to say, you should either give reasons in edit summaries or consult discussion page.--Doolee 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

i'd recommend you consult discussion page before changes. and don't even dare to accuse me of blinde revert I have read each word of that non-sense. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 19:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your edit to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

Now that you've explained your edit (or at least part of it), I agree that it was a valid edit. If you had left a comment when you made the edit the first time, instead of yelling at me when you made it the second time, we both would have been spared time and effort. KarlBunker 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soil

Thank you for your constructive edits on soil and pedology (soil study). Would you be interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil ? - Paleorthid 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, I'd very interested. Though I don't have so much time to regularly make major contributions. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Israel" -- Original Hebrew Bible Reference

Hello, I'd like to understand why you're deleting this non-commercial link and reference to the Hebrew language, as it is a clear source document for the name "Israel." Why did you delete this link from the Israel article? --8.2.208.4 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

because it's spam and or. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Revert Rule on Nicolas II

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 16:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IT IS VANDALISM! WHY ON EARTH ADMINS PREFER BLOCKING NORMAL EDITORS AND NOT VANDALS? -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ip i was reverting against was warned be at least 3 independent editors and block by two admins! -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're still reverting it, however. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the only time you can break the 3RR is if you are reverting blatant vandalism, which the eits you are reverting are not. Sorry! HawkerTyphoon 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute, the three-revert rule does not apply.. Read rules before talking. My reverts were completely justified. His were pure blanking and ignore of warnings. His edits were blatant vandalism. I guess someone didn't care to check and now scared to admit it. What was his edits btw? -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a content dispute to me; if it was vandalism, surely he would be reverting the entire article? His edits are just that -= edits, and even if the edits are removing certain sentences, he may view those sentences as unworthy of being included! HawkerTyphoon 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He is IP. He was warned by few editors. He was reverted by few editors. May be he doesn't speak English. May be it's just a cat walking on keyboard. For example, here. What exactly he was disagree? oh, I see. You don't care. As all those admins, you've got admin power on your side. You rule wikipedia. You can give warnings w/o checking. Users cannot do anything. Sure. Go ahead. I find WP disgusting due to such incidents. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point with that edit. However, the fact that he was an IP address is irrelevant, and I do care. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not an admin. I'm a user, like you. No different. If you find WP disgusting, leave. Simple as that. HawkerTyphoon 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With that edit. So other blanking was alright? I gave me a warning, for doing my job as editor and reverting vandal. And the only reasons is that you didn't care to check and wanted to feel good. So there is a difference and you're not like me. I'm not giving warnings away because I feel like. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Rain

This is the name that most English speaking media are using, and, while Summer Rains is a direct translation, Summer Rain is more appropriate because of this. Rangeley 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can read. Thanks. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not implying you cant, Ive just dealt with people who can be rather annoyed about this stuff and I try to cover all bases because of this. Glad to see you arent one of these such people. And thanks for getting the Hebrew name into the article, its really coming together fast. Rangeley 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

I'm not sure why you reverted the addition of two British by-elections from this page. I would have thought that by-elections are worthy of inclusion. -gadfium 09:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are but rather in British and Irish current events and not in World Current events. Don't you think? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet you didn't move them to that page, or add a comment suggesting this. I certainly agree that the byelections should appear on that page. I don't see the harm in them appearing on the main current events page as well, and reverting any good faith addition without a comment is rude.-gadfium 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abkhazia

Ok, sorry for personal attack but the Abkhazia article is not neutral and reflects the Kremlin's anti-Georgian prop. My edits are relatively neutral and I see not reason to revert them. I don't know very well how Wiki system works, but I'm going to add more content to the article and I promise to provide authoritative sources.

your edits are not neutral. I'm sorry that you don't understand it. There is a talk page. Present first your content with sources there. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, please maintain NPOV. I understand your position as Russian who has its own views about Abkhazia. But let’s keep NPOV on all articles, without any national agendas on Wikipedia. It’s better to co-operate and work together, rather than wage rv wars. Regards. Noxchi Borz 15:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am maintaining NPOV. I don't see a bunch IPs doing same thing. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning User:PerDaniel

I think it's time to give User:PerDaniel an offical warning. I would do it, but I never registered. 71.199.123.24 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is never to late to do. He will be given warning if he will continued editing in a pov manner. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why reverted?

Hello. Just wondering why my addition to the "Penis" article was entirely erased. I legitamitely added to the article. Even adding references to back up everything (albeit references not working, probably due to edit protections). Perhaps you didn't read through all of it and deleted assuming it was vandalism due to the prevalence of such on that article.

When talking about penis size the whole human population needs to be considered. Not just the average American/European. And even studies done there (USA/EURO) have shown great variation (just look at the penis size article for example). So it's opinionated to state a set average size (instead of a range). I also explained why the average size is slightly greater than the median size. Something which has been backed by all penis surveys.

I can understand that the section on "semen displacement" may be considered superflous. But this was a very small portion of my edit. If you're afraid this section could be offensive to "size sensitive" readers, remember this is about stating facts. And it doesn't say anything about relatively bigger human phalluses (human vs. human) being superior. It just gave a legit (referenced) theory as to why humans have larger penises vs. other primates.

Please let me know what you think. I believe at minimum everything besides the 2nd to last paragraph (semen displacement theory) should be reinstated as I put it (not that improvments couldn't be made in the future). That section (displacement) might be worded better as not to let anyone think it's slighting smaller hung folks. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Thanks. --Person 208.252.179.25 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political statut of the Palestinian territories

What's wrong with what I added? Robin Hood 1212 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why r u deleting my work?

What do u think the article should contain? The article is talking about territories not about the term. Robin Hood 1212 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you adding nonsense stuff to tasc's user page? Put it in talk. --Terrancommander 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel page move

You're not supposed to do manuel page moves like you did with the Gaza article. It deletes the edit and talk page history. Crumbsucker 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it. But I also think that speedy deletion, should be really speedy. don't you agree? -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting external links in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Please see Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Front_Line_Photographs_Section_-_concerns_re_clear_breach_of_NPOV about your deletion of these links to relevant information in this article:

Please refrain from deleting relevant information from the article without discussing it first. AdamKesher 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

These links are not relevant! and don't use my talk page to promote them. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Front_Line_Photographs_Section_-_concerns_re_clear_breach_of_NPOV:

Denis Diderot has deleted these links without discussion (13:55, 25 July 2006 Denis Diderot (Talk | contribs) (rv to Dominick per talk)), and claims in his comments that this talk page is the basis for his edits when in fact the dispute is ongoing and we have been asking for reasoned, substantiated arguments from both Denis Diderot and tasc, to no avail. I have done my best to resolve this issue with civil discussion on this talk page, and have now referred the matter to Wikipedia's informal moderation: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. AdamKesher 15:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it. many times. please, don't copy to my talk page every sentence avialable elsewhere. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - adding links

I just want to add http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah.htm to the end of the links section as it is a novel interpretation of the conflict and a good series of articles. The only rule about adding links is that they cannot be commercial, they cannot be one's own website, and the amount of links that support one side of an argument cannot outweigh the more mainstream view. None of these rules will be broken. 81.129.153.28 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi, you were listed as a proponant in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but have not yet made any statement in support, or oposition, of anything being discussed there. Would you like to write a statement? --Barberio 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that tasc deleted the links being discussed in this mediation on 05:14, 2 August 2006 in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and on 05:40, 2 August 2006 in 2006 Qana airstrike without recourse to mediation or the talk page. AdamKesher 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. AdamKesher 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. AdamKesher 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_Photographs

tasc, you deleted these news service images once again without justification, claiming that this was a "minor edit." I have no recourse but to request informal moderation on this dispute. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Photographs, as well as the talk page Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#Pictures_show_clear_POV. AdamKesher 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop talking to my as you're bot. Or i'll stop talking to you at all. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I came to your talk page to make sure you were aware of this case, and I see you are. :] It is, of course, your choice to participate in mediation. However, I think that mediation is a good way to stop conflicts before they escalate. If you'd like to calmly discuss the issue, the mediation case page is open whenever. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Iorek85 12:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (and it's not a bot, its a standard template as required by the rules.)

Don't forget that effect of your actions is also to revert back. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities between Qana incidents important because of strategic location of Qana

Hello! I saw you deleted the "similarities" section from the 2006 Qana airtstrike article. The reason I argue it is relevant is twofold: 1) Historical context (the citizens of Qana are certainly going to be a lot madder the second time around), and 2) to point out how the strategic value of Qana (being right on the border of the Hezbollah hotspot and the rest of Lebanon; being at the confluence of several roads) may have contributed to its being caught in the crossfire not once but twice. Perhaps it would be better as "strategic value of Qana," or just left as a mention in some other sentence? I dunno, the reason I think it is sort of important is that, I dunno about you, but I was like, "Where the hell is Qana, and why is it getting blown up?" It is important factual information, I think, to understand how its geographical location makes it a potential target.

Also, I noticed you have a lot of complaints already here about making edits without discussing them on the talk page. Perhaps this is the issue? "Similarities is similarities is similarities" doesn't take away the various justifications that I listed on the Talk page and repeated for you above. If you could just address those and why they are not valid, it would be great. Thanks!! --Jaysweet 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, shouldn't'a said that last part... but look, I read the rest of your Talk page, and although you are clearly for the most part a good Wikipedian, you're being accused several times of making edits without properly discussing them on the article's Talk page. Then, if anybody complains, you bully them by threatening to report them for miscellaneous other violations. I don't think that is the proper way to go about things. I mean, WP::AGF man. Frankly, I think you have violated that policy, but you have done it in a subtle enough way that I don't think you will be disciplined for it. But maybe it's something for you to think about. --Jaysweet 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Hi. You have been blocked from editing for having violated WP:3RR. Please be more careful in the future. P.S. Since you're blocked you're unable to edit AN3, so if you'd like to report someone for 3RR violation, you may do so here on this talk page & I'll treat it as a formal report. Regards, El_C 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Let me share pure joy I'm having right now, looking how anonymous editors ruined few article. I'm sure you'll do everything possible to block as much normal editors as possible. Great job. Cheers, -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the block upset you, but I take exception to that remark. There was a backlog at AN3 and in the last 24 hours I have blocked around ten editors for 3RR violations and closed about ten false reports. If you'd like to volunteer someone else for the job, feel free. El_C 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links on 2006 Israel-Lebanon

Why are you removing the blogs and frontline photos? The consensus was that they could stay. "Sure" is not a reason. --Iorek85 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

because, they are pov. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They are balanced and present both sides equally. There was a consensus after the arbritration to leave them in. Please don't remove thme without first gaining a consensus on the talk page. Thanks. --Iorek85 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There are normal external links which are also balanced and present both sides equaly. They are sufficient. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus decides what is sufficient, not you. Please stop removing relevant images from the article.--Epsilonsa 13:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. AdamKesher 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that tasc has again deleted these links while thumbing his nose at this process. AdamKesher 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please come back to Ru.Wikipedia

We seriously need you to improve the quality of GLBT-related articles in Ru.Wikipedia. Now, we are in process of winning a small, very small, tactic battle, but we'll continue to struggle against homophobic censure/pressure in FREE Wikipedia, and thus we need you. Please, don't spend your time in discussions with homophobes, no more like that was before. Just come, and help us improve the content :) rombik 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Да, приходите к нам, у нас не скучно. ;-) Пожалуйста. --Barnaul 22:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

Based on the fact that this mediation process has been ignored and mocked, I have requested arbitration on the censorship of links and images that satisfy Wikipedia policies WP:EL and others. Please see the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deletion_of_WP:EL-compliant_links_and_images_from_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

Calling others vandals is a violation of Wikipedia's no presonal attacks policy. You had no grounds for your reversion, while I certainly did mine. Please do not further make such statements or you may be blocked. Chacor 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not call you vandal. You might have check actuall diff and than apologise! -- tasc ^words_deeds 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but re. Lieberman, all elections are world news. Chacor 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not an internal party election in one of American states! -- tasc ^words_deeds 06:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I should point out that I first read about Leiberman failing to make the primary on http://news.bbc.co.uk :) --Jaysweet 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to make wikipedia part of BBC? -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just pointing out that it kind of is international news... BBC gave it very prominent coverage on their international news page.

Isn't the page you were editing a news feed thing anyway? So it's not actually Wikipedia, it was just Wikinews stuff? --Jaysweet 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It's wikipedia's world current events. Well BBC may cover any kind of news they consider important. Even hoaxes as they have done. I don't see why we should follow their policy. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not add inappropriate warnings to talk pages

Recently you added {{3RR}} to my talk page. However, I am not at all in danger of violating that rule, as I have only reverted a user's edits once. Adding misleading warnings is considered very rude and inappropriate. Quill E. Coyote 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Question

May I asked why you did what appears to be semi-automatic revert here? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Because at time of addition there were no entries there. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. However, most people will add the new date before adding the first event as it's much easier that way. So, I'd wait several (10-20) minutes to see if something is added (and not use a semi-automatic revert). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And some people would add the new date even w/o creating template. -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration - is it needed?

I've looked at the ArbCom case about 2006 war from another perspective. It's, in fact, a war about a couple of links. Well, the arbitration will start in 20 hours, but I'd like to suggest the last proposal: every participant recuses himself from editing the links in questioned pages for a few months, and we just leave that to other editors. The ArbCom will accept the case, but, well, a peaceful solution might be better. I've posted more on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#A different view. Just think about that and about whether you really need arbitration; and, if you agree with that, just sign there. It's the last chance for a peaceful resolution. Thanks in advance if you agree. -- CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 90 per cent

By the way, I hope you realize that I agree with you about 90 percent on Israel-Hezbollah issues. The only disagreement is with the mode of editing. Regards.Edison 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)